Armed Forces Justice system falling apart
 

With Sgt Danny Nightingale's support gaining signatures fast approx 90,000 signatures

Release an Unfairly Jailed War Hero | Campaigns by You

The Service Complaints Commisioners Report.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/service.pdf

And Reports of Kangaroo courts:-
Army discipline often equivalent to 'kangaroo courts' - Channel 4 News

I would imagine a complete overhaul of the Armed Forces Justice System is due, and examination of all criminal convictions fron summary hearings.

What a mess!

About time this was looked into. The charging system used in theatre on the lads is a disgrace.

Very interesting, Avionic Toad.

Do you think that the service justice and discipline systems are falling apart because they were always flawed, or is it (as at least one MP claimed in the Sgt Nightingale adjournment debate) because the system has been damaged by the dreaded ECHR?

Everything's been damaged by the dreaded ECHR. We can't even kick known terrorists out of the UK now. Clearly criminals' rights outweigh ours. It has probably never been a perfect system, but summary justice has often worked to everyone's benefit.

"Will you accept my award?" Yes, I'll take a fine and a week of restrictions instead of a formal punishment from a CM.

I can't beleive I'm sounding like I'm a supporter of the system. Maybe I think it could work if used properly and without prejudice.

Anyway, if Sgt N keeps his job, he'll have done well out of this, much better than a civil prosecution. I think.

Thank goodness the average soldier isn't some testosterone laden adolescent, hell bent on a good night out with the assistance of many pints of beer, otherwise you might need a more robust system of discipline to keep them in check. Luckily the lads today finish needlework classes early to go and help old people cross the road (before getting an early night), they are the ones who need protecting from the injustices of brutish Army discipline. Thank God for the ECHR, hopefully they will also demand a complete ban on those nasty, shouty Sergeant-Major types as well.

I cannot and do not comment on the case highlighted by the OP. What I do comment on though is the continual whittling away of the Powers of Subordinate Commanders, so that disciplinary matters that would have previously been handled swiftly and effectively at unit level betwixt alleged defaulter and officer i/c, personally known to each other, is now moved upwards to higher echelons and handled by apparatchiks who know no-one involved.
The Armed Forces are disciplined Services and can only function on a personal basis if we expect people to close with our enemies and defeat them in battle. Your "Boss" is not a "Boss" if he hasn't such powers over you to deal directly with you when you transgress. If he hasn't, he's simply another apparatchik in the CoC, and the Service is yet another bureaucracy. Is it?

Chugalug2 x2!

In what ways is the service justice system less robust since AFA 2006 than it was before?

Have some sentencing powers (and I don't mean fines) not been increased under AFA 2006/2011?

Are today's soldiers really more "hell bent on a good night with the assistance of many pints of beer" than their Cold War predecessors?

Which particular Article of the ECHR is against "nasty, shouty Sergeant-major types" or military discipline in general?

99,564 at 20:44!

Army or RAF lads? Not seen many RAF lads getting charged in theatre before....

Army.

What general guidelines are followed regarding the setting of the level of a financial charge for a minor administrative or discipline issue?

Or is it just up to the Old Man to decide the level of punishment?

It's in the Manual of Service Law (which like the rest of the system is tri-service these days)

MSL Vol 1 S2 Chapter 14 - The summary hearing sentencing guide PDF [1.3 MB]

I would have considerably more sympathy for Sgt Nightingale were it not for the fact that a very large amount of ammunition, clearly acquired over a significant length of time, was also found in his property.

He has got off bloody lightly in my view, and if you look at ARRSE, the general opinion seems to be that he deserves to be in prison for carrying out several criminal acts. Anyone else would right now be serving a minimum five year sentence.

Baffman, very interesting, especially in light of Daems/Aems and assessment of errors or mistakes. It appears that certain "offences" which may have been unintended are punishable under the armed forces act 2006?

What redress would individuals have if the sums involved exceeded those set out in that document?

VinRouge, the service person can appeal to the Summary Appeal Court. There is also a review system, which covers various issues including the sentence being within the powers available, and its severity being commensurate with the offence proven. The Reviewing Officer can refer a case to the Summary Appeal Court irrespective of whether the service person has appealed.

I thought this is what Justice is about :ok:

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...68120300_n.jpg

JimLad1
 

If you read any of the accepted books about the UK Special Forces you will know that they consume vasts amounts of ammunition in training, the lot under the bed could have accumulated in just a few days!

If he is realeased early he and every one else knows his days within the SAS are over, he will have to be RTU and back in the normal army life style.
He will also be a marked man for any and or all nutters to have a pop at him or his family.
Sad but true. !!

The problem is that the politicians made unauthorised possession of guns & ammo an absolute offence - you commit it you get done, no excuses.

This has led to the jailing of people who found guns and handed them into the police and a widow who found her husband had hidden a handgun in the house. Since there is no allowance in the law ("without reasonable excuse" is usually written in) judges have no option but to find people guilty.

MPs are well aware of this but are too busy fiddling their expenses to do anything about it.

= "March in the guilty b@stard and his lying friends!".......:(

"I have no live rounds or empty cases in my possession, Sir."


End of.


But I wonder what action would have been taken had he been the "Sir", especially a very senior one.

Total Rubbish!!

My other half organises a burn run of one or two pickup loads of firearms and shotguns handed into her firearms department every quarter and most of them are found after deaths, in the 12 years she has worked there they have never charged anyone who has handed in found weapons. They have jailed plenty who have had weapons found during searches and tried to use an excuse.

It will only get to the CPS if there is something fishy.

Except, of course, for this one mentioned earlier:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.

"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

OF course in that particular case, it wasnt reported that there had been a significant timelapse between his finding the gun and handing it in (IIRC it was the region of a week).

Had he gone straight to the station then he'd have been fine, but hanging on for a week is what did for him.

ECoHR
 

I don't think many would argue that a CO summary hearing is essential for disciplining junior ranks who fall out of line. The system needs to be quick decisive and need not be completely fair. (It's about discipline after all.)

However since given the powers to undertake criminal proceedings that carry a recordable criminal conviction under AFA 2006, this in my belief needs to result in a fair trial. It's one thing finding someone guilty for being generally late, scruffy and ill-disciplined, however if a Commanding Officer is able to find an individual guilty of Assault and Battery (and in Bale Baleiwai's case nearly get him deported). It must be a fair trial, a conviction can have life changing implications outside HM Forces.

Most worrying is that Bale, at a recent trial de nova (trial granted in exceptional circumstances) was found not guilty by a judge. This calls into question why his Commanding Officer got it wrong in the first place!

Although out the RAF for 4 years now, I have been experiencing problems with a summary hearing conviction for a scuffed door (£40 stoppage of pay and criminal damage conviction I did not realise I had as it predates AFA2006). I believe my CO decided to deliberately criminalise rather than discipline me. Would the ability to deliver effective Air Power be severely hampered if instead of a £40 fine and a criminal record for a scuffed door, I had been given a weeks restriction of privileges?

In my experience I also believe my RAF police interview tapes have been edited, (unproved allegation at the moment but hopefully the truth will come out). If this is the case, we have a police force with no independent oversight, breaking the law unpunished. The whole system needs examining

One wonders how many of the 100k-ish petition signers (or indeed posters here) have read the CM transcript rather than just the Daily Wail/Scum.

Transcript is in the public domain and may be seen here.

If you read it, you may well think:

a. Danny N got a pretty good deal, particularly considering the ammunition bit (which no-one seems to mention much)

And

b. He certainly got a better deal than he would in a civvy court.

He was neither dismissed the Service nor reduced in rank - both very unusual.

Change needed regardless.
 

100,000 Signatures have still been signed none the less, and that indicates public support. Would he have the same support if not HM Forces? I doubt it, therefore it proves the public (or 100,000 of them at least) would support a Court Martial system that gives servicemen preferential treatment.

Avionic Toad.

I am sure that there are abberations in ther Service justice system, but before everyone jumps on the band-wagon about 'poor' Sgt Nightingale, I strongly suggest that they follow TTH's advice and read the trancript. I understand, by the wway, the JA was a Group captain before he retired from theService.

There was certainly a Gp Capt of the same (unusual) name in the Legal Branch a few years ago.

There are three strands here: Oversight, justice and the court of public opinion.

On the day of the publication of the Leveson report the most important of them is "Oversight". Whilst the Service Justice system has been overhauled and CMs are now "fair" in accordance with ECHR rulings, they are conducted by properly trained and qualifieed individuals and subject to both scrutiny and appeal.

Lower level disciplinary hearings are conducted (and advised) by unqualified individuals and held in private/secret and include strange offences peculiar to the AF with no equivalent in the law as applied to civilians. (Sometimes for good reason: "sleeping on watch"; "negligence" etc. The real problem comes when an attempt is made to bring parity between what are essentially contractual breaches of an employent contract (if we had one) and criminal convictions. This is the bone of contention. The culture of the AF discourages answering back and an understanding of duties, rights and privileges. The army in particular has a population which has a disproportionatelty low educartional level for the amount of resposibility involved. This lower level of military justice is subject to (possibly unintentional) bullying and requires better oversight and supervision. It is not trusted.

"Justice" is served in different ways and every case is unique. Learned and independent judges (including now the Judge Advocate at CM) have to weigh an imperfect law (often hastily conceived by inexpert politicians without a view to the unintended consequences) against all the aggravating and mitigating factors. Often when verdicts appear incongruous, people have been prosecuted for the wrong thing (often for political reasons). The farmer (Martin) whose conviction for manslaughter was overturned having shot and killed an intruder would have not faced prosecution today for this action (but might have served just as long for illegal possession of firearms): the lesser offence was "lost" in an attempt to prosecute for the higher.

This is where the court of public opinion comes in. My exposure to the Special Needs community in Defence has suggested that they have the capacity to be both extremely professional and stunningly cavalier. We don't know all the facts in this case (and maybe we shouldn't) but if the Telegraph had said in its reporting "trophy pistol and hundreds of rounds of (assorted) ammunition" there might have been fewer signatures.

There is much criminal legislation in this country which is badly thought through from firearms to foxhunting to foreigners overstaying their welcome: if our legislators were brighter and more honest, perhaps this might not be the case.

Debated as below;


House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Nov 2012 (pt 0004)

Changes
 

The fact that so many SAS guys handed in weapons in the amnesty highlights the problem. (I believe the flatmate of Sgt. Nightingale is still serving a sentence.) The regular usage of non standard weapons, the operational tempo and way of life of our special forces, I imagine would make the brining back of firearms more prevalent than in other units.

How many occupations external to our Armed forces would place an individual in a situation whereby if they bring their tools of the trade home it would count as breaking the law, and if caught would result in a mandatory custodial sentence? I firmly believe that our Armed Forces are in a unique position and that they should not be judged in the same light as civilians.

A common sense approach more geared to the needs and expectations to the service in my opinion would be far better. Something akin to the Court Martial system before the Armed Forces Act 2006 (before the ECoHR forced various changes) would be more beneficial.

On the flip side I firmly believe that there should be a clear distinction between discipline and criminal offences (perhaps things have changed since my conviction I knew nothing about), but the very fact in the Baleiwai case the Commanding Officer and accused did not know it would result in a criminal conviction is ridiculous.

I'd appreciate any thoughts or comments on summary hearings anyone may have.

I would say the dreaded ECoHR is to blame. (That said the forces mentality of respecting and not challenging higher ranks can allow for out and out corruption in certain instances. In my experience this needs addressing)

Heard rumours of threats to remove the op bonus for lads in theatre for minor disciplinary matters (eg hair too long or not wearing the correct I.p.e.)

I also find the idea of significant charges for accidental n.d. On ranges or in training somewhat outdated, and more likely for individuals to hide accidents than report them.

In the absence of either an amnesty or a skip it was not unknown for troops to discard live ammunition in the drains. Skips were then provided.

This was only 2 years ago at a pre-Afg training not that far from me.

Nearer me was an RAuxAF Regt FS who accumulated 'spare' ammunition in a lockup on base as a convenience rather than account and hand in to the armoury.

"How many occupations external to our Armed forces would place an individual in a situation whereby if they bring their tools of the trade home it would count as breaking the law, and if caught would result in a mandatory custodial sentence? I firmly believe that our Armed Forces are in a unique position and that they should not be judged in the same light as civilians"

Rubbish! There are many people, service and civilian, out there who handle weapons and explosives all the time who do not take their "tools" home with them. They all seem to understand the importance of leaving their work securely at work.

When offered the chance of a weapon amnesty even his fellow SAS gave up their illegally held weapons indicating their new-found awareness of wrong-doing. To me this appears to be a case of shoddy oversight by SAS seniority who, possibly doing the same thing, created a "Norm" of keeping a few "trophies" behind.

Anyway, the Public have voted him out now - so no more bush-tucker trials for a while.

Quite possibly, but they are not on an instant call-out basis either.

Wrong again!
Very many are..and more than SAS in number too. They many not travel quite so far as the SAS do. But they are on call.

Well, don't be so mysterious Rigga, who are you talking about in such large numbers whose only difference to the SAS is that they 'might not travel so far'?

I suspect he is referring to CO19.